Cessna 182

[CptKelly]

My "other" plane is a Cessna 182. Yeah, I know, its a nose dragger. If had just been me only, I'd have chosen either a Maule M7-235, Cessna 180 or 185, or a L-19. Unfortunately, my sons are intimidated by tailwheels, and there is NO tailwheel CFI around here that I have confidence in. In all fairness, the 182 is a very comfortable traveling airplane, carrys a good load, and is fairly fast too.

Mike in NC

 

[skukum12]

Don't be ashamed, the 182 is a very good plane. Even very useful in Alaska situations. Fast, stable, good usefull load, good performance, and strong.

 

[Student Pilot]

Captain, (everyone that flys is a Captain) 182's are a good old rocket. Look at similar year models in 182's and 180's. After about 1965 the 182 was wider in the cabin, had more fuel, actually stalled slower and had a better load capacity than a 180. They are a good machine.

 

[freestone]

I saw one advertised, expensive, that had a io-550 conversion and was on floats with seawest's enhancement.

How would a plane like that perform? Compared to a c-185?

 

[Luke_theDrifter]

I like the C-182's also. Fast, carries a good load, 1/2 the price of a 206 to operate & realitively in-expensive to purchase. And they're are almost twice the plane of a 172. There is a HUGE difference between the 172 and 206, the 182 fills this gap nicely.

A 182 is basically the same fuselage as the 180/185, depending on year.

 

[sharp]

Which year model 182's can be put on floats or does it require a factory float kit?
Sharp

 

[mvivion]

Sharp,

THere is and never was a factory float kit for the 182. Cessna never intended it as a seaplane.

Seaplanes West and Wipaire both have STC's for the 182 on floats. Each covers a little different set of model years.

THere is a third STC that permits installation of EDO 2870's as well. That one's approved on later model 182's, not sure about earlier ones.

The early machines are preferable in some ways: About 1960, Cessna changed the fuselage design, and later the wing and tail as well. The earlier models are a 180 with a nosewheel, and can be converted via STC.

The later models, as noted, have slightly wider cabins, different (electric instead of manual) flaps and ailerons, and most importantly, the later models have a trim tab on the elevator, instead of the trimmable stabilizer, like the early models, and like the 180/185. That change to the tail makes the later airplanes feel nose heavy, and makes you pay close attention landing when light, cause it's hard to keep the nose from banging down.

I believe there are float conversions for all the late model 182's, not sure about the early ones, though if you really wanted to convert one of them, you could convert it to a 180.

MTV

 

[Crash]

A C-182 with the same load and engine size, will beat a C-180 or 185 off the ground any day of the week. No need to get the tail up to rotate, and they will rotate a lot farther then a tail dragger without the tail wheel to get in the way. I'd have one except for my need to operate on skis. Guys put 29" Gar aeros on the mains and an 8:50 on the front and go about anyplace you'd take a C-180 on wheels and get stopped a lot faster also. Neat plane with a good pilot in it. They also make a good float plane. One of Alaska's main stay grocery getters in the bush. Crash

 

[WWhunter]

Park Rapids aviation does conversions on 182's. I'm not sure what years they do but my 172 is hangared there and it seems like they are constantly doing them. They also use Aerocet floats.
If you need a number let me know. The owners name is Jeff and he will also be at Oshkosh, usually at the seaplane base.
Keith

 

[freestone]

I wonder what it is like with an io-550 330hp in it?

This was the later model, electric flaps and the angled tail.

Must be quite a performer with that engine, hot start issues not withstanding.

 

[Nocub]

A 182 will handle twice the crosswind that any 185 (or supercub)will.On grass prehaps 28 knots.

 

[85Mike]

Ah the 182!!!! My first airplane. '58 with a Robertson STOL kit, 8.50 mains and the big nose wheel. Was told it would fly with anything you could close the doors on and it is true. Bought it in '86 for $16,200 and flew it 324 hours the first year. Flew from SW WA to Wrangell AK with nothing but a map and compass 4 months later!!! What a dandy. I had a partner in it and he got stuck in the mud and got the prop a couple years later. We bought the 185 after that. Still love the 182. A dandy airplane and have often thought how much money I'd have saved by keeping it.
85Mike
PS, the plane is still registered and flying is southern OR. Also no longer have a partner in the 185 but still have it 16 years later. Also a DANDY!!
PPS, Paid 40k for the 185 in '89.

 

[mvivion]

Crash,

I can't argue with most of your assertions regarding performance, but I'd bet that the number of 180's in Alaska is at least quadruple the number of 182's, so your assertion that they are the main grocery getter in Alaska I think may be a little suspect. There are not that many 182s in the interior, at least.

Nonetheless, they are a great airplane. The later models without the stabilizer trim system are really hard to land without banging the nose down if you are at all light. The nose gear in the 182 is attached directly to the firewall, unlike the 206 setup. So, if you bang that nose gear a little too hard, you are about to take that airplane completely apart. I have seen that in at least a few 182's.

The early 182s have the same trim system as a 180, and are much easier to keep the nosewheel off the rough stuff.

There is no IO-550 rated for 330 hp. Great Plains has an IO-550 rated at 300 hp in the 182, only approved in the late 182. Big engine, big fuel flows.

There are essentially two ways to go with floats on the 182: Aerocets, with Seaplanes West kit, or Wipline's kit, with their floats. The primary difference, other than the floats, is that the Wip floats forward attach points are new large structural members attached to the firewall, which both provide more stiffness to the floats, AND strengthen the firewall.

On the other hand, the Seaplanes West kit with the Aerocets installs the forward fittings to the nose gear attach point. That directs all the loads into the weakest point in the structure, and it forms a triangular forward attachment--not nearly as strong.

Take a look at a set of Aerocets on a 206 while landing in some wave action-the fronts of the floats move around a good bit, because they are attached to the fuselage at one point in front. I believe Seaplanes West uses similar attachments. At least the Aerocets Ive seen on 182s are like this.

I like the way Wip attaches the front fittings to the airframe. It is strong, and allows higher gross weights in the 206. Not sure about the 182 and gross weight.

MTV

 

[kase]

Jerry standing by Bobs IO-550 powered C182 with 29 Bushwheels and 850X6 nose wheel. They tell me it gives a C180/185 a run for the money on take off and landing but a C185 will out run it in cruise.

 

[T.J.]

delete

 

[bob turner]

I am sure it is a quite capable aircraft. I'm sure a tri-gear Cub would be capable. I have no interest - but I sure love to fly those 180/185s. As for getting off the ground, I'd love to have a contest!

 

[185 Bushbird]

182

We have 2 182's on floats at Surfside in MN with 470's at 230 hp. one on aerocets and the other on 2960's if anyone wants to try one out, let me know. The one on aerocets is available for limited solo rental along with 5 other floatplanes. The aerocet does a much better job, cruises at 130mph and carries a good load comfortably. I have flown the IO-550 on aerocets, ported and flow balanced and what a machine, wheels and floats! I own a 185 on 3430's and have owned 2 -180's on 2870's and a 182 on wheels. Put wing extensions to get the gross to 2950 unless you have a 1981 or newer, they are 3100 gross and you have a good floatplane and wheel plane combo. See Jeff at parkrapidsaviation.com for a good conversion.

 

[Student Pilot]

A 182 will handle twice the crosswind that any 185 (or supercub)will.On grass prehaps 28 knots.

180's or 185's will handle that sort of breeze, I think in a strong crosswind I would feel more comfortable in a 180 or 185. I think the straight up and down rudder seems to give you more kick somehow when squaring up on touchdown, seems to have more authority.